Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Throughout this thread the thewholesoule has posted three accounts that he believes are evidence of fireballs in elevator shafts that did not lead all the way up to the aircraft impact zone of WTC 1. Therefore jet fuel could not have entered these shafts, something he believes can be used to support his belief about bombs in the basement of WTC 1. But the three accounts does not support thewholesoul's point of view at all. I will cover the three accounts in separate posts for readability.

The next account thewholesoule has used is this one:

Quote:

Firefighter Timothy Brown: We finally set up -- prior to this I believe it was the west side of the core of the building there were elevators. Someone had come to me and said that there were people trapped in one of those elevators. So I ran around the corner, and the hoist way doors were open, but the elevator car was only showing about two feet at the top of the door. You could see all the legs of the people that were in the elevator. I would guess there were about eight people in the elevator. The elevator pit was on fire with the jet fuel. People were screaming in the elevator. They were getting smoked and cooked. There weren't a lot of firemen there at the time. I grabbed some of the Port Authority employees and asked them where the fire extinguishers were and told them to get as many fire extinguishers as they could so we could try and fight this fire. As they were doing that, firemen started showing up, and I started asking them to get big cans, let's try to put this fire out. http://hosted.ap.org/specials/intera...ts/9110458.PDF

This quote thewholesoule found on Mark Roberts page together with other accounts from the WTC 1 lobby and basement levels. But it should have been on the next page where Mark Roberts (Gravy) has gathered witness accounts from inside WTC 2. Because we if we read the complete interview with Timothy Brown it is obvious that this took place inside WTC 2 and not inside WTC 1:

Quote:

So I remember running across a lot of
debris. I didn't have on fire gear, so I
remember trying to avoid the fire as much as I
could. I ran into the doors of the Two World
Trade on the Liberty Street side.

Source
This is just a simple mistake on Marks Roberts's part. During the story Timothy Brown moves from WTC 7 to WTC 1 and then to WTC 2, so it is easy to miss the transition from one building to the next if you skim through the document looking for accounts of WTC 1 lobby damage.

On the Mark Roberts page with witness accounts from inside WTC 2 (linked above) we find an account that with great certainty must be from inside the same elevator Timothy Brown describes above:

Quote:

Passenger elevator No. 13. South tower, 78th floor. 9:02 a.m.Alan Mann, 35, an executive vice president at Aon Corp., an insurance company, squeezed into an express elevator packed with 25 people evacuating the south tower. He was the last person in. The doors closed. The elevator descended normally for the first seconds of a ride to the ground floor that should have lasted 60 seconds. Then United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the south tower, tearing through the elevator machine room on the 81st floor. That cut most cables to the express elevators. Elevator No. 13 began a free fall from 900 feet above ground
.............
Then, somebody yelled, "Oh my God, fire!" Burning jet fuel shot flames into the car, burning Mann's neck. He gasped for breath.
............
Mann put his feet into the hole and squeezed out feet first, crashing to the floor. He was barefoot and shirtless, his pants shredded.

The lobby was deserted. He walked through revolving doors and found four firefighters in the underground shopping mall. He brought them back to the elevator. "You need to help these people," he said.

In other words yet another account that does not support thewholesouls point of view. It did not happen inside WTC 1. It took place inside WTC 2 and it involved an elevator shaft that went all the way up to the aircraft impact zone of WTC 2. Yet another tragic story about burning jet fuel going down the elevator shafts from the crash zone.

I tried to get thwwholesole to tell us which buildings the accounts were from so he might see where he went wrong, but he refused to address the question while going off on a rant about how he proved these things to be impossible.

Throughout this thread the thewholesoule has posted three accounts that he believes are evidence of fireballs in elevator shafts that did not lead all the way up to the aircraft impact zone of WTC 1. Therefore jet fuel could not have entered these shafts, something he believes can be used to support his belief about bombs in the basement of WTC 1. But the three accounts does not support thewholesoul's point of view at all. I will cover the three accounts in separate posts for readability.

The third one is this story:

Quote:

According to the accounts I have heard, Debbie was in the lobby waiting for an elevator when AA Flight 11 hit on 93. The jet fuel from the plane poured down the elevator shafts. Owing to the way the elevators are laid out, I don't understand how the fuel got into the elevator that she was waiting for. There are / (were) "Sky Lobbies" on 44 and on 78. So to go above those floors, you took an express elevator to the appropriate sky lobby and then transferred to a local elevator. The elevator machinery was located on the floors above the sky lobbies; only a very few shafts continued all the way up. Anyway, apparently she was in the lobby, the elevator shaftway doors opened and a fireball hit her with full force. She survived and was taken to a hospital with 90% burns. After lingering for about 50 days she died.http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AlMasetti.html

If we read the original source we learn that it was written by a person who has never met or spoken with the victim, Debbie Merrick. A couple of weeks after 9/11 the writer was assigned to a cubicle that contained a computer that was registered to Debbie.

The writer has heard accounts that Debbie Merrick was in the lobby of WTC 1 waiting for an elevator to visit Credit Union, when she got burned. And that Debbie died about 50 days later. That is basically the hard facts in the account. The remainder is just speculation by the writer about how Debbie Merrick could have been burned, because the writer is obviously aware of the fact that Credit Union was located on the 39th floor in WTC 1, according to the tenants lists I have checked. This was a floor that was severed by local elevators that did not go beyond zone 1 in WTC 1. While the aircraft impact site was up in zone 3.

But the fact is that it did not matter what elevator they were waiting for inside the elevator hallway on the ground floor of WTC 1. It is obvious from all the accounts that the complete hallway became an inferno, when the jet fuel fireball burst out of the elevator shafts that went up to the impact zone. Even people entering through the doors from the street got burned when the fireball shot out of the elevator hallway entrance facing the street. See also the photo I linked in post #258 earlier in this thread.

In other words this is just a case of thewholesoule using speculation to support his own speculation. This post was hardly worth the effort.

It was refreshing to read Norseman’s post, obviously he’s back on form. I view Norseman as the last man standing in this room and when I debunk him, and I will, reason demands that you all seek an alternative explanation. I suggest the “bombs in the basement” hypothesis is a good place to start.

This post will focus on two issues:
1) the problem of resistence (fireballs never travel through path of most resistence)
2) the problem of testimony (no testimony supports Norseman’s position)

Norseman opened strong providing the basement floor plans which show doorways from the express elevator shaft. Being intellectually honest I am forced to concede this point, so I hereby withdraw the claim made in post #235 that a fireball descending shaft 6 and 7 had no access to the basement levels. Moreover because Norseman clearly established that a fireball would have had access to the basement levels he managed to alleviate the “problem of resistence” – but as I will argue below he certainly did not not solve it.

Any fireball that travelled down the 6 and 7 shaft would naturally emerge from the opening provided by the doorway – and continue, by and large, in that direction. Watch the following links below to visualize what I mean:

For arguments sake let us assign the side where the doorway on the elevator shaft was situated as the “north-side”; now any structural damage to the east, west, and especially the south-side would mean that the fireball blasted down the shaft walls before it caused the structural damage. This of course would violate the “problem of resistence”.

Unfortunately for Norseman, this is exactly what must have happened. Ed McCabe was situated in a room on the “south-side” in relation to the 6, 7 shaft. For a fireball to reach Ed McCabe and blow the door to the room he was in "off its hinges" it had to take the path of most resistence through the shaft wall, and a further 3 walls one of which might well have been masonary. See this link to visualize the pathway a fireball would have to take: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=54

Falling debris could not explain Ed McCabes account either especially the production of “white smoke”.

Preumably in an attempt to remove these shaft walls so his position does not violate the “problem of resistence”, Norseman cites a falling “counterweight” as the means for doing so. For a nice moving illustration of a counterweight and how it works follow this link: http://science.howstuffworks.com/elevator3.htm No doubt when Norseman read the account of the damage done by the counterweight in the Empire State building he must have thought he found the holy grail.
Follow this link to read what it did: http://www.elevator-world.com/magazi...1/9603-002.htm

Assuming the counterweight does all the damage Norseman supposes it did and the shaft walls in B-4 were all destroyed THEN surely there will be testimony of people “hearing” and “seeing” this happen?

Unfortunately for Norseman there is not. He does however attempt to use the testimony of Phillip Morelli in support of his position eventhough Morelli does not “see” any shaft walls being destroyed by falling debris, eventhough the explosion “heard” by Morelli came from ABOVE. Because the explosion heard by Morelli came from above we can safely rule out the counterweight as a possible explanation for the simple reason that falling objects do not take horizontal turns and normally fall starightdown until they hit the ground or in the case the shaft pit at B-4. In other words, if a counterweight really did fall Morelli would have heard the explosion from the B-4 shaft pit and seen the shaft walls being destroyed. This logic applies to all the falling debris.

The truth is the counterweight never reached the basement because unlike the Empire State Building, the safety measures actually worked in the Twin towers. We known this because car 50 stopped before it reached the shaft pit at B-6. so it doesn’t take too much of a leap of faith to assume that the safety measures also worked when the cables were cut in shaft 6, 7. Follow this link to read about safety measures in the event of cables being severed: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question730.htm
Following this link to read about the numerous safety measures specifically aimed at preventing counter-weight free falling: http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?...DISPLAY=CLAIMS

Further evidence the counterweight did not reach the basement is due to the extent of structural damage inflicted on elevator cars 50, 6 and 7, or should I say the lack thereof. A counterweight falling 90+floors would easily destroy these cars – but none were.

Finally, Norseman points to the testimony of Sanchez and Hursley to support the arrival of the fireball – which I accept. He fails to mention however that their testimony does not support his argument that the fireball came from the express elevator shaft. Obviously, the fireball Sanchez saw coming through the freight elevator was the same fireball that Griffith mentions in his testimony descending the freight elevator shaft.

In conclusion, Norseman’s hypothesis still does not satisfy the (1) “problem of resistence” and (2) “the problem from testimony”. When are you going to figure that out and concede?

All the things falling down the elevator shafts would hit the basement levels within 10 seconds after the aircraft crashed into the building. There is no need for any "magic fireball" or bombs to explain what happened before the jet fuel fireball arrived.

Side show:

Originally Posted by johnny karate

please provide evidence that there was damage, explosions, etc. in the basement levels...prior to the arrival of the actual fireball.

“etc”? I think you stuffed enough down the shaft Norseman, the only thing missing is the kitchen sink!

In my previous post I argued that the “counterweight” did not free fall to basement. I supported this argument with three reasons
(a) elevator cars 50, 6 and 7 were not destroyed
(b) no explosion was witnessed in B-4 shaft pit
(c) the safety measures worked

Norseman has no evidence that a counterweight fell to basement in the twin towers. He does have evidence that it fell in the Empire State Building. Just because the counterweight fell in one building does not prove it falls in all buildings.

Q: does the falling debirs explain what happened before the fireball arrived?

1)Sound of explosion: falling debris cannot explain why the explosion was heard above B4 and below B1 because falling debris cannot make horizontal turns and would naturally fall to the shaft pits located at B4 and B6.

2)Building and floor shaking: steel beams, aircraft parts, broken gypsum plates, bodies, concrete all falling together and impacting the shaft pit on B4 cannot explain why people on B1 felt the building shaking. Mike Mc Quaid was two floors below the impact and heard and felt nothing!

3)Morelli was thrown to ground: falling debris cannot explain this since it was an explosion “above” Morelli that threw him to the ground. And as stated earlier, faling debris naturally falls straight down until it reaches the pit.

4)Damage to elevator car 50: falling debris cannot explain this because the door was blown upwards (Cruz) and blown inwards (Griffith). Falling debris could explain if the door was blown downwards. (Norseman's dreams)

5)Thick white smoke: Norseman you said once that

Originally Posted by Norseman

evaporated/pyrolyzed jet fuel creates white smoke.

given that white smoke was witnessed by griffith and cruz before the jet fuel arrived, whats the next tune you plan on whistling? And no, falling debris cannot explain the production of white smoke.

There is no need for any "magic fireball" or bombs to explain what happened before the jet fuel fireball arrived.

I have just debunked the “kitchen sink” hypothesis, I debunked the official fireball hypothesis, and I have debunked the JREF jet fuel hypothesis. in my next post i will outline the exact premises that debunk these hypothesis and I challenge any rational person to debate me on those premises. When you avoid this challenge please ask yourself why you are afraid to enter a rational debate in defence of your convictions.

Norseman has no evidence that a counterweight fell to basement in the twin towers. He does have evidence that it fell in the Empire State Building. Just because the counterweight fell in one building does not prove it falls in all buildings.

But, we know that such a counterweight existed. We DON'T know that a bomb existed.

__________________To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

Here's one thing you should take into consideration when analyzing the eyewitness testimony:

Most of the testimony is from people who worked in the lower levels of a building where an explosive device was set off eight years earlier, doing heavy damage and killing a lot of people.

If you were working in such a place, and you heard unexpected loud noises and saw smoke and fire, what would be the first thing to pop into your head as to the cause? Don't you think this thought would color your perceptions of the events?

Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. As police investigators say, "Believe nothing that you hear and half of what you see."

__________________To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

i gave three reasons to support my argumnet. that means that in order to refute my conclusion you will have to refute the three reasons upon which that conclusion was based.

i never denied the existence of the counterweight i am simply saying there is no evidence that it fell to the B4 and B6 shaft pit.

so you are going to have to do a lot better than that - there are rules to argumentation and its high time you familiarise yourelf with them

peace

I wasn't trying to refute each one of your points. That gets tedious after a while, when we've seen the same tired arguments over and over.

Nevertheless, addressing this one fallacy uncovers the major weakness of yours and every other truther's arguments: They rely heavily on unknown entities whose existence you are eager to accept as a given, but for which there is no evidence.

The hypothesis that a counterweight fell down the elevator shaft has zero unknown entities, because we know there was an elevator shaft, we know there was a counterweight, and we know there is such a thing as gravity.

The hypothesis that a bomb went off has one unknown entity: The bomb, for which there is no evidence.

__________________To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

Here's one thing you should take into consideration when analyzing the eyewitness testimony:

Most of the testimony is from people who worked in the lower levels of a building where an explosive device was set off eight years earlier, doing heavy damage and killing a lot of people.

If you were working in such a place, and you heard unexpected loud noises and saw smoke and fire, what would be the first thing to pop into your head as to the cause? Don't you think this thought would color your perceptions of the events?

Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. As police investigators say, "Believe nothing that you hear and half of what you see."

funny, i bet if their testimony supported the official story you would nt be saying that.

you see casting doubt ion testimony is you last last resort becuase you have no rational argument against my other premises.

that pleases me

besides the conclusion that Norsemans position violates the problem of resistence was not only based on testimony but on objective facts.

for example the elevator shaft only had one door on the north side.
ed mc cabe was on the south side
he experienced explosion
for the official story to be true it MUST violate the problem of resistence.

i posted 4 links of backdraft that demonstrate for anyone who cared to watch that freballs follow the path of least resistence

so there are objective facts - independent of testimony - that prove Norseman wrong.

the truth is you cant debunk my argument because
the truth is my argument is the truth
and the official story has NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION
and any rational person reading this forum will immediately recgonise the abject failure of people like you in attempting to debunk my arguments

Soul:
There are no safety stops or devices attached to the counter weight. If the cables break the car has arresters but the wieght does not. Thought you would want to know.

(I know this first hand)

well then you have no excuse for your ignorance

read the follwoing is a link: http://www.elevator-world.com/magazi...1/9603-002.htm
"The counterweight was up at the 80th floor. When the cables were cut, 10,000 lbs of steel started down, but luckily, the two governor cables were okay. The governor and safety caught the weight at the 76th floor and hung there."

you see the reason the counterweight fell in empire state building,according t the people who investigated it, is because the governor cable was severed. but not all counterwieghts fell because not all governor cables were severed.

i even posted a link that discusses these safety measures SPECIFICALLY TO PREVENT FREE FALL of COUNTER WEIGHTS.

i provided ojective facts like the lack of damage to the elevator cars etc

where is your evidence taht the counter weight fell?
show me the beef, not your personal incredulity

I wasn't trying to refute each one of your points. That gets tedious after a while, when we've seen the same tired arguments over and over.

i know we werent trying to refute my points beccause i know that you cant

besides if you seen the same arguments before then it should be easy to refute them?

the truth is you cant becuase the truth is my argument is the truth and the official hypothesis has no rational justification.

[quote=aggle-rithm;3731578]this one fallacy uncovers the major weakness of yours and every other truther's arguments: The hypothesis that a counterweight fell down the elevator shaft has zero unknown entities, because we know there was an elevator shaft, we know there was a counterweight, and we know there is such a thing as gravity.

The hypothesis that a bomb went off has one unknown entity: The bomb, for which there is no evidence

look i gave three reasons i based my conclusion on those reasons. i am sorry if you are unable to refute them, i am sorry that it means you must seek an alternative explanation, i am sorry that bombs in the basment are an alternative explanation - but you need to grow up and face reality

bombs exist right?
bombs have been used before in the SAME FRIGGEN BUILDING?

Did the lightly loaded car itself fall? This indicates that the counter weight would have to have been detached. If the weight was attached the car would not have fallen due to the weights (balance) effect.

__________________"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

funny, i bet if their testimony supported the official story you would nt be saying that.

If the testimony is CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE KNOW, I would not be saying that.

If someone is BASING a theory on eyewitness testimony alone, then I have a problem.

Quote:

you see casting doubt ion testimony is you last last resort becuase you have no rational argument against my other premises.

that pleases me

besides the conclusion that Norsemans position violates the problem of resistence was not only based on testimony but on objective facts.

for example the elevator shaft only had one door on the north side.
ed mc cabe was on the south side
he experienced explosion
for the official story to be true it MUST violate the problem of resistence.

i posted 4 links of backdraft that demonstrate for anyone who cared to watch that freballs follow the path of least resistence

so there are objective facts - independent of testimony - that prove Norseman wrong.

the truth is you cant debunk my argument because
the truth is my argument is the truth
and the official story has NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION
and any rational person reading this forum will immediately recgonise the abject failure of people like you in attempting to debunk my arguments

peace

There is no "official story".

There is a generally accepted version of events, which is simple, straightforward, internally consistent, and relies on very few unknown entities.

Then there are theories such as yours that are needlessly complicated and filled with ad hoc explanations that serve no purpose but to bolster your weak arguments.

Any rational person would accept the first version over the second any day, regardless of your attempts to complicate the issue.

This "problem of resistance" relies on a belief that you understand the mechanics of the plane crash and subsequent side effects perfectly. I am skeptical of this.

__________________To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

bombs exist right?
bombs have been used before in the SAME FRIGGEN BUILDING?

your fallacy is being irrational

Wrong.

YOUR fallacy is both a strawman (no one has argued that bombs had never been used in the building) and a non sequitur (it doesn't follow that if bombs were used in the building once, then they were used on 9/11).

It is known that there was a plane crash at the tower on 9/11. Since a plane crash is a chaotic event that doesn't happen often, the behavior of a building that is struck by a plane is unpredictable, therefore it is irrational to say that certain physically plausible things CAN'T have happened. This is particularly true if your knowledge of the building's structure is incomplete. I'm willing to bet the farm that it is.

The bomb is an unnecessary entity. Period.

__________________To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

1)Sound of explosion: falling debris cannot explain why the explosion was heard above B4 and below B1 because falling debris cannot make horizontal turns and would naturally fall to the shaft pits located at B4 and B6.

2)Building and floor shaking: steel beams, aircraft parts, broken gypsum plates, bodies, concrete all falling together and impacting the shaft pit on B4 cannot explain why people on B1 felt the building shaking. Mike Mc Quaid was two floors below the impact and heard and felt nothing!

My bolding.

This is what Mike McQuaid said to New York Times:

Quote:

I was talking to someone from American Bureau of Shipping [also on 91st floor]. I hear this explosion, like a transformer below. What the hell was that? The whole place shook. The hallway started filling up with smoke.

Note also that Mike McQuaid thought that the explosion occurred below him, even though a large aircraft crashed into the building a couple of floors above him. The reader who wants to familiarize him-/herself with how people inside the towers experienced the impact should study this page and the following pages carefully: Some people near the aircraft impacts didn't hear them

The keen reader will then quiet easily see through thewholesou'sl dishonesty regarding the two claims I have quoted from his post, since thewholesoul is fully aware of the content of those pages, including what Mike McQuaid really said, that site by Mark Roberts has been thewholesoul's cherry tree throughout this thread.

Any fireball that travelled down the 6 and 7 shaft would naturally emerge from the opening provided by the doorway – and continue, by and large, in that direction. Watch the following links below to visualize what I mean:

For arguments sake let us assign the side where the doorway on the elevator shaft was situated as the “north-side”; now any structural damage to the east, west, and especially the south-side would mean that the fireball blasted down the shaft walls before it caused the structural damage. This of course would violate the “problem of resistence”.

Unfortunately for Norseman, this is exactly what must have happened. Ed McCabe was situated in a room on the “south-side” in relation to the 6, 7 shaft. For a fireball to reach Ed McCabe and blow the door to the room he was in "off its hinges" it had to take the path of most resistence through the shaft wall, and a further 3 walls one of which might well have been masonary. See this link to visualize the pathway a fireball would have to take: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=54

Do you understand where you went wrong here thewholesoul? Because this is nonsense.

drop a canon ball down an elevator shaft and watch it make a horizontal turn.

This is silly. Firstly, neither jet fuel nor a fireball is in any way similar to a cannon ball, and you completely ignore the nature and properties of the chaotic disbursement of the fuel from ruptured fuel tanks resulting from the airplanes slamming into and destroying much of the core of the building upon impact.

Secondly, you completely ignore the inevitable transfer of fuel and/or fireballs due to multiple adjoining hoistways, elevator shafts, and utility shafts due to damage from the impact of the airplanes and the chaotic nature of the fuel disbursement. There are numerous paths that the fuel and fireballs could and would, therefore, take.

It's as though you think that fuel and fireballs could only travel downward in a couple of shafts that you imagine are hermetically sealed or something, and that is completely unrealistic.

read the follwoing is a link: http://www.elevator-world.com/magazi...1/9603-002.htm
"The counterweight was up at the 80th floor. When the cables were cut, 10,000 lbs of steel started down, but luckily, the two governor cables were okay. The governor and safety caught the weight at the 76th floor and hung there."

you see the reason the counterweight fell in empire state building,according t the people who investigated it, is because the governor cable was severed. but not all counterwieghts fell because not all governor cables were severed.

i even posted a link that discusses these safety measures SPECIFICALLY TO PREVENT FREE FALL of COUNTER WEIGHTS.

i provided ojective facts like the lack of damage to the elevator cars etc

where is your evidence taht the counter weight fell?
show me the beef, not your personal incredulity

__________________911 resource site by Mark Robertshttp://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/homeGravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

I was writing from memory and obviously errd. I recall that even you are sometimes prone to human fallibility. The significant thing about McQuaid’s testimony is hearing the explosion from below and not above. But I concede to your point and thereby withdraw McQuaids statement in relation to point 2.

But does that mean point 2 is refuted? not at all.

Lets see it again shall we:

Point (2): The building shaking cannot be explained by the impact of falling debris on the shaft pit.
-If you believe that falling debris impacting shaft pit B4 and B6 will cause the building to shake on B1 then you seriously need your head examined. The amount of falling debris required to cause the building to shake would destroy car 50, 6 and 7 when it passed. Because these cars were not destroyed when all this debris (supposedly) passed we can safely rule out debris as a possible explanation.

Lets see point (1) again: The sound of the explosion heard somewhere between B1 and B4 cannot be explained by debris falling down an elevator shaft because the debris would naturally fall straight down and could not take a horizontal turn after dropping 90+floors. this is basic basic reasoning that should have been discoved before you proposed falling debris as the explanation for the explosion between B1 and B4.

Originally Posted by Norseman

The keen reader will then quiet easily see through thewholesouls dishonesty regarding the two claims I have quoted from his post

As explained above i errd, I have no problem admitting that. It happens unfortunately. It was certainly not intentional and the retraction of McQuids statement makes no difference to the conclusion from point (2) and (1). If you think it does then spit it out.

The keen reader should also notice that you have not provided any rebuttal to my post. I argued that your "kitchen sink hypothesis" i.e. the falling debris cannot not explain any events 1-6 prior to the fireball. So Norseman, are you going to put my arguments on ignore? Or are you going to step up to the plate and rebute my arguments with reason and logic?

I for one am still waiting. And if you cannot rebute my conclusions then I will conclude that you have conceded to my argument and retracted your "kitchen sink hypothesis" as an explanation for the events in the basement (as mentioned in my post) prior to the fireball arriving. Thats how debates work I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Norseman

Do you understand where you went wrong here thewholesoul? Because this is nonsense.

I dont know. maybe you can elaborate for us. But if your yet-to-be-known argument does not explain or refute the following fact then there is no need posting it:

"For a fireball to reach Ed McCabe and blow the door to the room he was in "off its hinges" it had to take the path of most resistence"

Did the lightly loaded car itself fall? This indicates that the counter weight would have to have been detached. If the weight was attached the car would not have fallen due to the weights (balance) effect.

DGM i apologise for calling you ignorant in a previous post. I am forced to retract the patent in support of my claim that the counterwieight did not fall to the shaft pit.

but lets assume that the counterweight did fall. can you help me to answer the following questions:
- how come the cars 6 7 and 50 were not destroyed by the falling weight?
- how come Phillip Morelli heard the first explosion from above him and not right beside him at the shaft pit?

peace

and i will be awaiting a response. if you fail to respond i will be forced to conclude that you have conceded the claim that the counterweight did not fall to the basement pit. thats how debate works.

DGM i apologise for calling you ignorant in a previous post. I am forced to retract the patent in support of my claim that the counterwieight did not fall to the shaft pit.

but lets assume that the counterweight did fall. can you help me to answer the following questions:
- how come the cars 6 7 and 50 were not destroyed by the falling weight?
- how come Phillip Morelli heard the first explosion from above him and not right beside him at the shaft pit?

peace

and i will be awaiting a response. if you fail to respond i will be forced to conclude that you have conceded the claim that the counterweight did not fall to the basement pit. thats how debate works.

Bolded above. This is not how debate works. Stop posting it, it makes you look childish.

__________________Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.

DGM i apologies for calling you ignorant in a previous post. I am forced to retract the patent in support of my claim that the counterweight did not fall to the shaft pit.

Apology accepted, (don't let it happen again )

Quote:

but lets assume that the counterweight did fall. can you help me to answer the following questions:
- how come the cars 6 7 and 50 were not destroyed by the falling weight?

-

Why would they have to be? They're on their own rails and could have passed by easily. I don't see how there would be a requirement that they would have to damage the cars.

Quote:

how come Phillip Morelli heard the first explosion from above him and not right beside him at the shaft pit?

This quote may explain it.

Quote:

Morelli tried to take the stairs up to the lobby of the North Tower, but they were blocked by fallen debris. Fortunately, he knew the World Trade Center complex like a map—he had worked there for many years and was there during the 1993 terrorist bombing. Morelli made his way toward the South Tower, when he felt another violent shudder. So he changed direction again, went into the parking lot underneath the towers and ran the long way up the ramps into daylight. He finally left the complex just as the South Tower was collapsing. http://www.liuna.org/pubsnews/pdfs/A...g/Pgs76_84.pdf

Sounds like debris of some sort fell above him. Was it the weights (probably not) but he does say he heard things falling in the shafts and the flimsy shaft walls are not going to contain anything of significant mass.

__________________"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

If we read the original source we learn that it was written by a person who has never met or spoken with the victim, Debbie Merrick. A couple of weeks after 9/11 the writer was assigned to a cubicle that contained a computer that was registered to Debbie.

The writer has heard accounts that Debbie Merrick was in the lobby of WTC 1 waiting for an elevator to visit Credit Union, when she got burned. And that Debbie died about 50 days later. That is basically the hard facts in the account. The remainder is just speculation by the writer about how Debbie Merrick could have been burned, because the writer is obviously aware of the fact that Credit Union was located on the 39th floor in WTC 1, according to the tenants lists I have checked. This was a floor that was severed by local elevators that did not go beyond zone 1 in WTC 1. While the aircraft impact site was up in zone 3.

But the fact is that it did not matter what elevator they were waiting for inside the elevator hallway on the ground floor of WTC 1. It is obvious from all the accounts that the complete hallway became an inferno, when the jet fuel fireball burst out of the elevator shafts that went up to the impact zone. Even people entering through the doors from the street got burned when the fireball shot out of the elevator hallway entrance facing the street. See also the photo I linked in post #258 earlier in this thread.

In other words this is just a case of thewholesoule using speculation to support his own speculation. This post was hardly worth the effort.

The issue of how fuel could have made it to the Zone 1 shafts is fairly easy to resolve.

Here is the question that TWS' asked:

Originally Posted by thewholesoul

so the question remains unanswered. how did the jet fuel travel down the utility shaft 50, and express elevator shaft 6 and 7 then TRANSFER into local elevator shafts in zone I? this is not possible. i am unable to rationally accept that the jet fuel can fall down the aforementioned shafts, stop, and take a horizonatal turn. i completely understand that the local elevators shared the same shaft so in zone III jet fuel transfer likely occured. but local elevator shafts terminated at the end of their respective zone and the jet fuel from the impact zone had no access, repeat NO ACCESS, to the elevator shaft in zone I because the elevator shaft of zone I it did not run through the impacted zone III.

The amount of fuel dumped into the building was far more than would have burned up during the initial fireball, ~ 10,000 gallons, with ~8,000 gallons on floors 93-97 (NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Table 7-5) and a lot of this fuel would have expended its momentum in the core area (NCSTAR 1-2 - Fig 7-8). Its no great stretch to presume that a thousand or so gallons of fuel may have gone down the local Zone 3 elevator shafts as well as the Express and Freight elevator shafts.

But, as the question is about the fuel in the Zone 3 shafts, the salient point is that regardless of which floors they served, the Zone 3 elevators all ran in shafts that terminated on the 78th floor.

Which could easily explain the transfer to the Zone 1 shafts.

There were the C bank of 8 massive (10,000 lb capacity) Express Shuttles running from the lobby to the 78th floor (with their lift equipment above on the 79th floor) and there were also 3 10,000 lb capacity InterZone shuttles running from the 78th floor to the 44th floor where they overlapped with the B bank of 8 10,000 lb capacity Express shuttles that went from the 44th floor to the Lobby.

Thus while these various express elevators don't share the same vertical shafts as the Zone 3 local elevators, it is quite logical to presume that when a thousand or more gallons of jet fuel hit the bottom of the local shafts on the 78th floor that several hundreds or more gallons of jet fuel, at least, is going to wash over and down one or more of these express shafts that share the 78th floor and DO go to the lobby.

__________________If an honest man is wrong, after demonstrating that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest.

but lets assume that the counterweight did fall. can you help me to answer the following questions:
- how come the cars 6 7 and 50 were not destroyed by the falling weight?
- how come Phillip Morelli heard the first explosion from above him and not right beside him at the shaft pit?

Counterweights travel in an entirely different space than the elevator itself. They pass beside each other. Otherwise you would require a shaft twice as high as the highest floor serviced. This is Not A Good Design.

And localizing loud sounds is difficult under the best of conditions. There were a great many loud things going on all at once, in a confined space. There are any number of explanations.

I honestly think you need to work on this a whole lot longer before pretending to be knowledgeable in the subject.